WP Nos.

7051 and 7052 of 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

ORDERS RESERVED ON 07-09-2023

ORDERS PRONOUNCED ON 15-09-2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

WP Nos.7051 and 7052 of 2017

Dr.V.Kalanidhi ... Petitioner in both WPs

Vs.

1.The State of Tamil Nadu,

Represented by its Principal Secretary to Government,
Planning, Development and Special Initiatives
Department,
Fort St. George,
Secretariat,
Chennai-600 009.

2.The Commissioner of Land Administration,

Chepauk, Chennai,
Ezhilagam, Chepauk,
Chennai-600 005.

3.The Chennai Metro Rail Limited,

Represented by its Managing Director,
Administrative Office Building,
CMRL Depot,

Page 1 of 59
 WP Nos.7051 and 7052 of 2017

Poonamallee High Road,

Koyambedu,
Chennai-600 107.

4.The District Collector,

Chennai District,
Chennai.

5.The Tahsildar,
Egmore-Nungambakkam Taluk,
No.88, Spur Tank Road,
Mayor Ramanathan Street,
Chetpet,
Chennai-600 031.

6.The Corporation of Chennai,

Represented by its Commissioner,
Ripon Building,
Park Town,
Chennai-600 003.

7.The Ministry of Urban Development,

Represented by its Secretary to Government,
Union of India, Room No.308-C,
Nirman Bhavan,
New Delhi-110 108. ... Respondents

WP No.7051 of 2017 is filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus,
calling for the records of the first respondent pertaining to G.O.Ms.No.139,
Planning Development and Special Initiatives Department, dated
27.08.2010 and quash the same and consequently forbear the respondents,
their men, agents, staff or any other person claiming through or on behalf of

Page 2 of 59
 WP Nos.7051 and 7052 of 2017

them from in any way interfering with the petitioner's peaceful possession
and enjoyment of the petitioner's property comprised in S.Nos.10, 11 and
147 Part Block No.28, Koyambedu Village, Egmore – Nungambakkam
Taluk, Chennai District and further direct the third respondent to forthwith
de-seal the car park of the petitioner's hospital comprised in T.S.No.147 Part
Block No.28, Koyambedu Village, Egmore – Nungambakkam Taluk,
Chennai District.

WP No.7052 of 2017 is filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus,
calling for the records of the second respondent pertaining to proceedings
No.T1/21463/2013 dated 08.11.2016 and the proceedings of the seventh
respondent pertaining to Letter No.K-14011/17/2012-MRTS-III dated
09.04.2013 and quash the same and consequently direct the third respondent
to pay compensation in accordance with law for the property of the
petitioner taken over by the third respondent in T.S.Nos.10 and 11, Block
No.28, Koyambedu Village, Egmore – Nungambakkam Taluk, Chennai
District along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of
taking possession of the lands.
For Petitioner in both WPs: Mr.P.Wilson,
Senior Counsel for
M/s.P.Wilson Associates.

For Respondents-1, 2, 4
and 5 in both WPs : Mr.P.Kumaresan,
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by Mr.G.Krishna Raja,
Additional Government Pleader.

Page 3 of 59
 WP Nos.7051 and 7052 of 2017

For Respondent-3 in both

WPs : Mr.P.S.Raman,
Senior Counsel for Ms.Rita
Chandrasekar for CMRL.

For Respondents-6 and 7

in both WPs : Not Ready in Notice

COMMON ORDER

WP No.7051 of 2017 has been filed to quash the Government

Order issued in G.O.Ms.No.139, Planning Development and Special

Initiatives Department, dated 27.08.2010 and to forbear the respondents,

their men, agents, staff or any other person claiming through or on behalf of

them from in any way interfering with the petitioner's peaceful possession

and enjoyment of the petitioner's property comprised in Survey Nos.10, 11

and 147 Part Block No.28, Koyambedu Village, Egmore – Nungambakkam

Taluk, Chennai District and further direct the third respondent-Chennai

Metro Rail Limited (CMRL) to forthwith de-seal the car park of the

petitioner's hospital comprised in T.S.No.147 Part Block No.28,

Koyambedu Village, Egmore – Nungambakkam Taluk, Chennai District.

Page 4 of 59
 WP Nos.7051 and 7052 of 2017

2. WP No.7052 of 2017 has been instituted to quash the

proceedings dated 08.11.2016 issued by the second respondent and the letter

dated 09.04.2013 issued by the seventh respondent and consequently direct

the third respondent to pay compensation to the petitioner in accordance

with law for the property of the petitioner taken over by the CMRL for

developing the Metro Rail Project.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND AS STATED BY THE PETITIONER:

3. The petitioner is a Doctor by profession and the Chief

Executive Officer of M/s.Vee Care Group, which runs about three hospitals

in Chennai, including one Multi-Speciality Hospital, one Multi-Speciality

Clinic and one Nursing and Para Medical College. The petitioner wanted to

construct a hospital in Koyambedu area to cater to the needs of the public

and acquired title over the properties comprised in T.S.Nos.10, 11, 12 and

147 Part in Block No.28, Koyambedu Village, Egmore – Nungambakkam

Taluk, Chennai District through Sale Deeds initially registered in the name

of the father of the petitioner, mother of the petitioner, brother of the

petitioner and the petitioner himself. Subsequently, the family members of

the petitioner executed the Settlement Deed in favour of the petitioner

Page 5 of 59
 WP Nos.7051 and 7052 of 2017

settling the entire subject property in the name of the petitioner. The

petitioner converted the existing building that was standing over T.S.No.10

into hospital in the name and style of 'Vee Care Hospital' in the year 2007.

The petitioner's vendors had obtained Planning Permission from

Corporation of Chennai on 01.03.1995. Thus the petitioner obtained

Certificate of Registration for his hospital from the Corporation of Chennai.

4. The petitioner has been awarded patta over the subject

property by the Tahsildar, Egmore-Nungambakkam Taluk. The third

respondent proposed to acquire an extent of about 62.93 sq.meters in the

front portion of the subject property comprised in T.S.Nos.10 and 11

abutting the road for the purpose of construction of Metro Rail Project.

Instead of initiating land acquisition proceedings under the Land

Acquisition Act, the third respondent caused the fourth respondent to issue

two notices dated 24.08.2011 under Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land

Encroachments Act, 1905 on the ground that the subject land belongs to the

Government. The petitioner filed objections. The fifth respondent-Tahsildar

issued notice under Section 6 of the Land Encroachments Act, 1905 on

10.09.2011.

Page 6 of 59
 WP Nos.7051 and 7052 of 2017

5. The petitioner states that his vendors were the owners of the

subject property as per the Town Survey Register. However, the petitioner

agreed to part with the land to an extent of 62.93 sq.meters to the third

respondent for construction of Metro Rail Project and consequently entered

into private negotiations with the third respondent with a request to pay

compensation. The third respondent took possession of the property and

completed the Metro Rail Project. However, the third respondent vide

proceedings dated 17.11.2011 rejected the claim of the petitioner to pay

compensation for the acquisition of about 62.93 sq.meters of land.

6. The petitioner states that in the revenue records, the subject

lands are classified as “Grama Natham”. Thus the petitioner approached the

third respondent to settle compensation, since 'Grama Natham' lands did not

belong to the Government. The claim of the petitioner was rejected by

CMRL in proceedings dated 17.11.2011. The petitioner filed WP No.11205

of 2011 to quash the said proceedings and to direct the third respondent to

pay compensation. The said writ petition was dismissed by this Court on

23.04.2012 on the ground that Statutory Forum is available for determining

Page 7 of 59
 WP Nos.7051 and 7052 of 2017

the issue relating to compensation.

7. The petitioner accordingly filed an appeal to the Government

of India, Ministry of Urban Development, who in turn rejected the

application in proceedings dated 09.04.2013 with liberty to approach the

fourth respondent-District Collector, Chennai District under the Act. The

petitioner filed Statutory Appeal before the fourth respondent against the

notice dated 24.08.2011 issued by the fifth respondent as well as the notice

issued by the third respondent under Section 6 of the Land Encroachments

Act, 1905 dated 10.09.2011. However, the fourth respondent-District

Collector vide order dated 05.07.2013 dismissed the appeal. The ground

stated by the fourth respondent-District Collector is that the subject lands

are classified as 'Government Poramboke'.

8. The petitioner filed revision petition before the second

respondent-Commissioner of Land Administration, which was rejected in

order dated 08.11.2016. The second respondent dismissed the appeal on the

ground that the second respondent is not an Appellate Authority under the

Land Encroachments Act, 1905. Thereafter the petitioner was served with

Page 8 of 59
 WP Nos.7051 and 7052 of 2017

the Government Order issued in G.O.Ms.No.139, Planning Development

and Special Initiatives Department, dated 27.08.2010. Based on the

Government Order, the second respondent has concluded that the subject

land belongs to the Government and the Government transferred the land to

the CMRL for Metro Rail Project. Thus no acquisition proceedings are

initiated against the subject land.

9. The petitioner states that he is paying property tax, water tax,

electricity charges regularly and running the hospital till date. The third

respondent on 20.02.2017 visited the hospital and has stated that they intend

to take possession of the entire subject property in T.S.Nos.10, 11 and 147

Part over which the hospital stands. The third respondent has relied upon

the Government Order issued in G.O.Ms.No.139, Planning Development

and Special Initiatives Department, dated 27.08.2010. The petitioner states

that 'Grama Natham' lands does not vest with the Government and therefore,

G.O.Ms.No.139, Planning Development and Special Initiatives Department,

dated 27.08.2010 is wholly erroneous and cannot be sustained in law.

Page 9 of 59
 WP Nos.7051 and 7052 of 2017

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:

10. The learned Senior Counsel Mr.P.Wilson, appearing on

behalf of the petitioner, mainly contended that the Government cannot claim

right over 'Grama Natham' lands. 'Grama Natham' lands are not vest with the

Government, but belong to persons, who all are in possession of the same.

The owner of 'Grama Natham' is entitled to convey the lands to other

persons. The use of the 'Grama Natham' land for commercial purposes did

not divest the title. The contention of the Tahsildar in his counter affidavit

that 'Grama Natham' lands cannot be used for commercial purposes, since

the lands belonged to Government, is contrary to law.

11. In respect of the contentions of CMRL, the learned Senior

Counsel for the petitioner reiterated that the judgment relied on by CMRL is

not applicable to the facts of the present case. It is consistently held by the

Courts that the Government cannot claim any right or title over 'Grama

Natham' lands. The title over 'Grama Natham' lands belong to the first

occupier of the lands. When the title is absolute, change in use of lands

cannot affect the title over the property. Thus conversion of residence as

Page 10 of 59
 WP Nos.7051 and 7052 of 2017

commercial, would not affect the title of the petitioner in respect of the

subject property. The judgment relied on by CMRL that conversion of

resident as commercial, would dis-entitle the occupant from holding 'Grama

Natham' lands, is incorrect. The Division Bench of this Court in the case

Zonal Officer-V, Corporation of Chennai, Chennai-10 and Another vs.

K.Narasa Reddy, Kances Constructions Pvt. Ltd., and Others [2012 (4)

MLJ 646] had not laid down any law that the 'Grama Natham' lands if used

for commercial purposes revert back to the Government. It was a posing

observation made by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in paragraph-

17, which is in the nature of obiter dictum. The earlier judgments of the

Court has not been considered by the Division Bench of this Court.

12. The learned Senior Counsel relied on the following

judgments to emphasis the grounds raised by the petitioner:-

In the case of S.Rangaraja Iyengar and Another vs. Achi

Kannu Ammal and Another [1959 SCC OnLine Mad 30], this Court held

that “a house site owned by a person in what is generally known as 'Grama

Natham', is not under the property of the Government”. In the very same

judgment, delivered in the Second Appeal, the learned Single Judge of this

Page 11 of 59
 WP Nos.7051 and 7052 of 2017

Court, made an observation that “it is not necessary that, in order that the

policy underlying Madras Act XXVI of 1948 be completely given effect to,

house sites belonging to private individuals (that is, persons other than the

landholder) in a 'Grama Natham', should be transferred to the Government”.

13. In the case of State of Madras vs. Kasthuri Ammal [1974

(84) LW 531], the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court held that “in as

much as Survey No.74 is a 'Natham Poramboke', such portion of the suit site

which is comprised therein must be held to be a house site and the

possession of which the plaintiff is entitled to cling to and resist all

invasion. Such a right of the plaintiff can never be held to have been

extinguished or curtailed by reason of Act 30 of 1963. It must also be stated

with equal force that any interference or invasion with the said right of the

plaintiff is always challengeable in appropriate proceedings before the Civil

Court”.

14. In the case of A.K.Thillaivanam and Others vs. District

Collector, Chengai Anna District and Others [1998 (3) LW 603], it is

held that “the admitted classification is 'Village Natham' and merely because

Page 12 of 59
 WP Nos.7051 and 7052 of 2017

the petitioners have converted the same into agricultural lands, no right

could accrue to the respondents even after conversion”.

15. In the case of Krishnamurthy Gounder vs. Government

of Tamil Nadu Represented by the District Collector, Cuddalore South

Arcot District [2002 SCC OnLine Mad 398], this Court held that “the

'Village Natham' is a land which never vested with the respondents and they

have no right over it. Admittedly when the land has been classified as

'Village Natham', no portion of the land vests with the Government”.

16. In the case of Executive Officer and Others vs.

V.Swaminathan and Others [2004 SCC OnLine Mad 412], the Hon'ble

Division Bench of this Court held that “Panchayat cannot treat persons

occupation to 'Grama Natham' land as encroachers and seek to evict them.

The title to a house site in a 'Grama Natham' is protected from transfer to

Government”.

17. In the case of Goan Real Estate and Construction Ltd vs.

Union of India [(2010) 5 SCC 388], the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India

Page 13 of 59
 WP Nos.7051 and 7052 of 2017

held that “it is well settled that an order of Court must be constructed having

regard to the extent and context in which the same was passed. A judgment,

it is well settled, cannot be read as Statute. Construction of a judgment

should be made in the light of the factual matrix involved as therein. What

is more important is to see the issues involved therein and the context

wherein the observations were made. Observation made in judgment, it is

trite, should be read in isolation and out of context”.

18. In the case of State of Tamil Nadu vs. Madasami [2012

(2) CTC 315], this Court observed that “once a property has been classified

as 'Grama Natham', Government cannot claim any right over the said

property”.

19. In the case of Dharmapuram Adhinam Mutt vs.

Raghavan and R.Subbiah [2012 (1) CTC 280], the Hon'ble Division

Bench of this Court observed that “'Grama Natham' is the village habitation

where the landholders may build the houses and reside. They are also

known as 'House Sites' (Manai). They were classified as 'Grama Natham' to

differentiate for Inam lands, Ryotwari lands, Pannai lands and Waste lands,

Page 14 of 59
 WP Nos.7051 and 7052 of 2017

while later vested with the Government, the 'Grama Natham' never vested

with the State”.

20. In the case of Karana Maravar Service Society vs. State

of Tamil Nadu [2012 (4) LW 92], this Court made an observation that “the

'Grama Natham' land never vests with the State. The individual occupier

may very well resist ejectment or any other act”.

21. In the case of A.R.Meenakshi vs. State of Tamil Nadu

[2013 (4) LW 76], this Court observed that “the expression 'Government

Poramboke' and 'Grama Natham' are not synonyms. The classification of

'Sarkar Village Natham' was rejected by the Courts. Subsequently the

classification of 'Government Poramboke Patina Natham' is also rejected by

the Court”.

22. In the case of D.Shankar vs. Special Commissioner and

Commissioner of Land Administration [MANU/TN/2889/2013], the

Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court observed that “once the land is

classified as 'Village Natham', no portion of the land vests with the

Page 15 of 59
 WP Nos.7051 and 7052 of 2017

Government, even if the portion of the land is converted into an agricultural

land”.

23. In the case of P.Solomon Francis vs. District Collector,

Kancheepuram [2014 SCC OnLine Mad 8156], this Court observed that

“land classified as 'Grama Natham' cannot be claimed by the Government.

The occupier of 'Grama Natham' accrues a right to transfer such property to

anybody he likes”. In yet another case of N.Lakshmanan vs. The

Commissioner, Kanchipuram Municipality [MANU/TN/0211/2018], the

very same Judge who was part of this Bench upholding this rights on

'Grama Natham', had passed the remarks in another judgment in the adverse

per incuriam.

24. In the case of A.Sacratice and four others vs. The

District Collector and two others [pronounced on 14.03.2023 in WP

No.31688 of 2022], the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court observed that

“in view thereof, we hold that when the land in question is Adi Dravidar

Natham i.e., the 'Grama Natham' land which is meant for occupation by Adi

Dravidars by putting up their houses, it cannot be set to be Government

Page 16 of 59
 WP Nos.7051 and 7052 of 2017

interest lands so as to made over to the CMRL without acquisition of title”.

25. In the case of T.S.Ravi vs. The District Collector

[pronounced on 11.10.2018 in WP Nos.26234 and 26237 of 2018], the

said principles are reiterated by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court by

holding that the Government has no paramount title to the lands classified

as 'Grama Natham' and such lands do not vest in the Government. Thus the

Government has no right to evict persons who all are in occupation of lands

classified as 'Grama Natham' in the revenue records by invoking the

provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachments Act, 1905 or any other

enactment. It is always open to the Government to acquire the lands by

paying compensation, if they are needed for any public purpose.

26. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the above two

judgments, namely, A.Sacratice and four others vs. The District

Collector and two others [pronounced on 14.03.2023 in WP No.31688 of

2022] and T.S.Ravi vs. The District Collector [pronounced on

11.10.2018 in WP Nos.26234 and 26237 of 2018], the State preferred SLP

before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, which have been admitted and

Page 17 of 59
 WP Nos.7051 and 7052 of 2017

pending.

27. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner relied on the

above propositions laid down in various judgments emphasised that 'Grama

Natham' lands cannot be subjected to eviction under the Tamil Nadu Land

Encroachments Act, 1905. The petitioner purchased the lands from his

vendors, who were the title holders. Conversion of residential house for

commercial purpose would entitle the Government to resume the land

classified as 'Grama Natham'. Thus the Government Order of the year 2010

and the orders passed by the second respondent in proceedings dated

08.11.2016 and the letter of the seventh respondent dated 09.04.2013 are

not in consonance with the established principles and are in violation of the

principles to be applied for 'Grama Natham' lands. Thus all the impugned

orders are liable to be set aside.

REPLY BY THE RESPONDENTS:

28. Counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents 1, 2,4

and 5 by the Tahsildar states that the subject property involved in these writ

petitions is situated in T.S.Nos.10, 11 and 147 of Block No.28 of

Page 18 of 59
 WP Nos.7051 and 7052 of 2017

Koyambedu Village. The TSLR Extract in respect of the said property is as

detailed below:-

Name of the village Koyambedu Koyambedu Koyambedu

Block No. 28 28 28
T.S.No. 10 11 147
Old S.No. 233 part 233 part 233 part
Classification Circar – Natham Circar – Natham Circar – Natham
Poramboke Poramboke Poramboke
Extent Hec.Ares.Sq.meters Hec.Ares.Sq.meters Hec.Ares.Sq.meters
0.11.13.5 0.02.12.5 0.04.08.0
Adangal 'Grama Natham' 'Grama Natham' 'Grama Natham'
Remarks Gopal Pillai Kesavalu Naidu Changes made as per
wife son DRO Chennai
Megavathyammal K.Mani lr.No.APA/6460/2003
sons and Daughter dated 30.12.2003 and
1) G.Chandran the No.A3/patta
2) Saroja transfer 2039/02-03
3) Shanthi dated 02.01.2004 –
4) Sulochana Amudhan
5) Vasantha Anthony
6) Lakshmi

29. In G.O.Ms.No.139, Planning Development and Special

Initiative Department, dated 27.08.2010, the 'Government Poramboke' land

in T.S.Nos.10 and 11 of Block No.28 of Koyambedu Village of erstwhile

Egmore-Nungambakkam Taluk, presently Aminjikarai Taluk was

transferred to Chennai Metro Rail Limited Scheme for public utility, which

was occupied by Vee Care Hospital. Thus the Tahsildar, Egmore-

Page 19 of 59
 WP Nos.7051 and 7052 of 2017

Nungambakkam Taluk had issued eviction notice under Section 7 followed

by notice under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachments Act,

1905.

30. The petitioner filed WP No.11205 of 2012 to quash the

above proceedings and the said writ petition was dismissed on 23.04.2012.

The petitioner filed an appeal before the District Collector, Chennai under

Tamil Nadu Land Encroachments Act, 1905, which was rejected. The

subject lands are treated as 'Sarkar Poramboke – Grama Natham and

therefore, the Government transferred the land in favour of CMRL. The

appeal filed by the petitioner before the Authorities were rejected on the

ground that the subject land is Sarkar Poramboke – Grama Natham as per

the TSLR Extract. Therefore, the petitioner is to be construed as an

encroacher.

31. In respect of the patta granted in favour of the petitioner,

the respondents state that it was granted in the year 2010. Such pattas

alleged to have been obtained by the petitioner for a vast extent of a Single

Unit is an erroneous one and is in violation of law and liable to be

Page 20 of 59
 WP Nos.7051 and 7052 of 2017

cancelled. In fact, one time order was issued by the Government only in the

year 2013 wherein the Taluk Tahsildars were appointed as Settlement

Officers for granting 'Thoraya Pattas' to the occupants of lands classified as

'Grama Natham'. The petitioner claims that he was granted patta in the year

2011, which is erroneous. The subject land involved in these writ petitions

are found inevitable for implementation of the Scheme 'Chennai Metro Rail

Project', which is for public purpose. A huge sum of money is spent by the

Government for the implementation of 'Chennai Metro Rail Project'. The

subject property will not confer any right over the land, which stands

classified as 'Sarkar Poramboke – Grama Natham' especially when the said

portion is used for commercial purposes. The petitioner's vendor did not

have any alienable right to alienate the subject property to any third parties.

The Tahsildar issued notices to the predecessors also on 05.07.2013 under

Section 7 followed by notice under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land

Encroachments Act, 1905.

32. The petitioner himself admits that the subject lands

purchased by him are used for commercial purposes. In 'Grama Natham'

lands, commercial activities are prohibited as 'Grama Natham' lands cannot

Page 21 of 59
 WP Nos.7051 and 7052 of 2017

be utilised for commercial purposes.

33. The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) after consulting

the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records had come to a

conclusion that the petitioner cannot claim any right over the said piece of

land classified as 'Grama Natham', which is meant only for residential

purposes.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE THIRD RESPONDENT-

CMRL:

34. The learned Senior Counsel Mr.P.S.Raman, appearing on

behalf of the third respondent-CMRL mainly contended that the subject

lands are classified as 'Sarkar Natham Poramboke' in the classification

column and 'Grama Natham' in the Adangal column. The administrative

approval for transfer of subject lands were granted by the Government in

G.O.Ms.No.139, dated 27.08.2010. Admittedly, statutory show cause notice

under Section 7 followed by Section 6 notice under the Tamil Nadu Land

Encroachments Act, 1905, was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner filed

writ petition, which was dismissed. Thus the petitioner approached the

Page 22 of 59
 WP Nos.7051 and 7052 of 2017

Authorities by preferring appeals and all those appeals were rejected.

35. The classification originally made in the revenue records

that 'Grama Natham' lost its relevance in view of the fact that the subject

property has been brought under the City limits of Chennai and more-so,

there was ban imposed for granting patta in respect of the Government lands

in Chennai City Built Area. The very classification of 'Grama Natham' lost

its relevance and since the Government reclassified 'Grama Natham' lands in

Chennai City as 'Sarkar Poramboke – Grama Natham' lands and such lands

cannot be assigned in favour of any person, since the Government imposed

ban long before the purchase of the subject land by the petitioner. The

purchase of property by the petitioner and conversion of such Government

land for commercial purposes, would not confer any right on the petitioner

and the petitioner cannot claim title over the subject property nor claim

compensation from the third respondent-CMRL. The petitioner is an

encroacher of the Government land and using the property for commercial

purposes and running hospital for his personal gains. Therefore, the

Government order issued in G.O.Ms.No.139, Planning Development and

Special Initiative Department, dated 27.08.2010, transferring the subject

Page 23 of 59
 WP Nos.7051 and 7052 of 2017

land in favour of the third respondent-CMRL is in consonance with the

established principles of law and there is no infirmity.

36. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the third

respondent-CMRL contended that the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court

dismissed batch of writ petitions in the case of P.India Prasad represented

by its Power of Attporney P.Srinath vs. State of Tamil Nadu [2014 SCC

OnLine Madras 2267]. In the said case, the eviction proceedings under the

Land Encroachments Act, 1905 over 'Grama Natham' lands used for

commercial purposes and not residential purposes. The Division Bench

observed as follows:-

“A perusal of the impugned order would

show that as per the records, the lands have been
classified as circar poramboke. It is seen that the
Town Survey Register shows the classification of
the land as a circar poramboke. Even assuming
that the lands are Grama Natham lands, they can
only be used for residential purpose. Admittedly,
in all these cases, the petitioners have put up
commercial buildings, Therefore, the authorities
have rightly held that the petitioners do not have

Page 24 of 59
 WP Nos.7051 and 7052 of 2017

any right over the properties, which are subject

matter of the proceedings”.

37. In yet another judgment of this Court in the case of Zonal

Officer-V, Corporation of Chennai, Chennai-10 and Another vs.

K.Narasa Reddy, Kances Constructions Pvt. Ltd., and Others [2012 (4)

MLJ 646], the Hon'ble Division Bench observed as follows:-

“The pathetic situation prevailing in this

part of the Globe, as we observed is that, ignoring
the fact that Gramanatham land is common
village land, the greedy persons like the writ
petitioner in this case are indulging in activities
which are purely commercial in nature”.

The Hon'ble Division Bench directed the Revenue Officials to strictly

protect 'Grama Natham' lands from being misused, particularly for

commercial purposes.

38. In the case of M.Sekar vs. District Collector [2016 SCC

OnLine Madras 27115], the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court

Page 25 of 59
 WP Nos.7051 and 7052 of 2017

reiterated that the judgment reported in 2012 (4) MLJ 646 and held that the

Authorities shall be duty bound to ensure 'Grama Natham' lands are not

commercially exploited.

39. In yet another reportable judgment of this Court in WP

No.6827 of 2018, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court made an

observation that payment of electricity charges etc., will not confer any

vested right of ownership on the writ petitioner.

40. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the third

respondent reiterated that under RSO 21 exploitation of the 'Grama Natham'

lands for commercial purposes are impermissible and more-so, classification

of the urban lands are reclassified. The subject land has been already

reclassified as 'Sarkar Poramboke – Grama Natham' and therefore, the

petitioner cannot claim any title over the subject property and the petitioner

is to be construed as an encroacher.

41. Regarding the claim of the petitioner for compensation, the

land was not acquired, since it was classified as 'Sarkar Poramboke - Grama

Page 26 of 59
 WP Nos.7051 and 7052 of 2017

Natham' and vests with the Government. The Government transferred the

land in favour of the third respondent-CMRL for developing Chennai Metro

Rail Project, which has already been developed, in the particular locality.

Thus the claim for compensation made by the petitioner is untenable and the

petitioner, being an encroacher, is liable to the evicted under the provisions

of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905.

42. The petitioner has instituted a civil suit in C.S.No.525 of

2013, seeking compensation and the said civil suit is pending. Regarding

the classification of 'Grama Natham' the traditional concept lost its

relevance and in this context, the learned Senior Counsel drew the attention

of this Court with reference to the orders passed in WP No.33546 of 2017

dated 13.07.2013, wherein this Court observed that the 'Natham Poramboke'

lands cannot be granted indiscriminately without following the procedures

or Schemes. Such lands are meant for eligible landless poor people for

construction of houses and it is to be distributed equally to all eligible

persons without causing discrimination.

Page 27 of 59
 WP Nos.7051 and 7052 of 2017

ARGUMENTS OF THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE

GENERAL:

43. The learned Additional Advocate General, appearing on

behalf of the respondents 1, 2, 4 and 5 made a submission that the subject

lands were reclassified as 'Sarkar Poramboke – Grama Natham'. The

Government issued in G.O.Ms.No.1135, Revenue Department, dated

17.03.1962, wherein it was reiterated that there was a ban imposed by the

Collector of Chingelpet in proceedings dated 15.07.1958 and was extended

to the lands within the radius of 20 miles. The list of villages lying within

32 kms (20 miles), the Madras City limit, Saidapet Taluk were also notified

in the said Government Order. Koyambedu area is falling within the Madras

City limit. Therefore, there was ban for assignment of lands in City Built

Area. The limits were notified in the year 1962 itself and the District

Collectors or the Revenue Officials are not empowered to grant assignments

in respect of the lands classified as 'Government Poramboke – Grama

Natham' or the lands belonging to the Government. When there was an

absolute ban for assignment of land, the very alleged occupation of the

petitioner's vendor itself cannot be trusted upon and doubtful, therefore, the

consequential sale made in favour of the petitioner's family are untenable

Page 28 of 59
 WP Nos.7051 and 7052 of 2017

and thus the Authorities have rightly issued notice under Section 7 followed

by Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachments Act, 1905. The lands

vest with the Government and the petitioner being an encroacher is not

entitled for the compensation nor entitled to continue in the Government

land and is liable to be evicted from the Government land.

DISCREPANCY IDENTIFIABLE IN RESPECT OF THE TITLE

DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE PETITIONER:

44. The details of the documents are as under:-

Date Events
31-05-1995 Registered Sale Deed for the land bearing

T.S.No.10, Block 22 measuring 13402.42 sq. feet

T.S.No.10, Block 22 measuring 2680.484 sq. feet

Document No. Executed in favour of

1526 of 1995 V.Kasturi (mother of petitioner)

1527 of 1995 V.Gajarajan (brother of petitioner)
1529 of 1995 V.Kalanidhi
1530 of 1995 N.Veerasamy (father of petitioner)
05-06-1995 Registered Sale Deed for the land bearing

T.S.No.10, Block 22 measuring 13402.42 sq. feet

T.S.No.10, Block 22 measuring 2680.484 sq. feet

Document No. Executed in favour of

1528 of 1995 V.Indumathi (sister of petitioner)

Page 29 of 59
 WP Nos.7051 and 7052 of 2017

Date Events
22-07-2010 T.S.No.11

The following Sale Deed has been executed in favour of petitioner

Document No. Sale Deed Executed by Admeasuring about

(in sq.ft.)

2593 of 2010 Mrs.K.Sharadha 1028

2592 of 2010 Mr.Ravi Kottarakara 1200
2591 of 2010 K.P.Ganesh 1027
15-12-2014 T.S.No.10

The following Settlement Deed has been executed in favour of petitioner

Document No. Settlement Deed Executed by Admeasuring about

(in sq.ft.)

5411 of 2014 MrV.Ganarajan

(brother of petitioner) 2680
697 of 2015 Mrs.V.Indumathi
(sister of petitioner) 2400
5409 of 2010 Thiru Arcot N.Veerasamy
(father of petitioner) 2400

45. In respect of the Sale Deed dated 31.05.1995, executed in

favour of the family members of the petitioner, the documents state that the

vendors numbering 7 together were in absolute possession and

enjoyment for more than the statutory period and they had been in

absolute, undisturbed and uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of

the land whereas the Revenue Department also declared and confirmed that

the vendors have acquired the absolute title and have been in possession and

Page 30 of 59
 WP Nos.7051 and 7052 of 2017

enjoyment of the subject property, in their letter No.67 of 1992 dated

31.12.1992.

46. The 7 vendors are (1) Tmt.Megavathi Ammal, W/o.Gopal

Pillai, (2) Mr.G.Chandran, S/o.R.Gopal Pillai, (3) Tmt.C.Saroja,

W/o.Chandrasekaran, (4) Tmt.G.Shanthi, D/o.R.Gopal Pillai, (5)

Tmt.B.Sulochana, W/o.Boopalan, (6) Tmt.B.Vasanthi, W/o.Baskar and (7)

Tmt.G.Lakshmi, D/o.R.Gopal Pillai. All vendors were residing at No.6,

West Mada Street, Koyambedu, Madras-600 107. The schedule of the

property mentioned in the document states that the piece and parcel of the

land situate at No.106, Koyambedu Village, now comes under

Thirumangalam Village, Egmore-Nungambakkam Taluk, within the

Registration District of Central Madras. It seems that all the petitioner's

vendors are either from the same family or relatives. All the vendors were

residing at No.6, West Mada Street, Koyambedu, Madras-600 107 and the

subject land classified as 'Grama Natham' is coming under Thirumangalam

Village, Egmore-Nungambakkam Taluk. Whether the members of the same

family were in occupation of the entire extent of 'Grama Natham' land and

the said lands were assigned in their favour by the Government has not been

Page 31 of 59
 WP Nos.7051 and 7052 of 2017

clearly mentioned. However, the very same vendors belonging to the same

family executed multiple Sale Deeds in favour of the family members of the

writ petitioner, i.e., his father, his mother, his brother, his sister and himself.

There was no document to establish title prior to Sale Deed executed in the

year 1995. There is no express mentioning about the predecessor in title to

the petitioner's vendor and therefore, this Court can form an opinion that the

land was classified as 'Grama Natham' and subsequently reclassified as

'Sarkar Poramboke – Grama Natham'. Whether the petitioner's vendors were

assigned with the lands by the Government or not, is also not made clear

except the letter No.67 of 1992 dated 31.12.1992 and the said letter was not

produced before this Court by the petitioner.

47. The Government imposed ban for assigning the

Government lands falling within the City limits. Thus the Government

transferred the subject land to CMRL through G.O.Ms.No.139, Planning

Development and Special Initiatives Department, dated 27.08.2010 for

developing Chennai Metro Rail Project.

Page 32 of 59
 WP Nos.7051 and 7052 of 2017

LEGAL POSITION:

Definition and Origin of 'Grama Natham' lands

48. 'Grama Natham' has been defined in the Law Lexicon as

follows:-

“Ground set apart, on which the house of

a villager may be built”.

49. 'Grama Natham' is the village habitation, where the land

holders may build houses and reside. They are also known as 'House Sites'

(Manai). They were classified as 'Grama Natham' to differentiate from Inam

lands, Ryotwari lands, Pannai lands and Waste lands, while later vested with

the Government, the 'Grama Natham' did not vest with the State.

50. As far as the Corporation limits and Municipal limits are

concerned, the Government imposed ban for assignment of 'Grama Natham'

lands and in many cases, the Government has reclassified the 'Grama

Natham' lands as 'Government Poramboke' and in such circumstances, the

occupants are not entitled to claim patta or right over the property.

Page 33 of 59
 WP Nos.7051 and 7052 of 2017

51. If the Natham is unoccupied, it will be classified as a

'Poramboke Natham'. Where such 'Poramboke Nathams' are

concerned, the Government acts as a custodian, and may allocate the

piece of land to an individual, only for the construction of houses.

52. The Government Order has provisions for “encroachments”

on poramboke land. A penalty is levied on encroachments on poramboke

land, which also acts as a record of occupancy (because it makes them

visible on an official register). It’s called a B-memo and is issued by the

village panchayat or the government agencies under whose control the

poramboke land lies. Although Tahsildars are supposed to act to remove

encroachments within three months of the B-memo being issued (pending

appeals), it has been observed that the memo is often used as a proof of

occupancy.

53. According to Government Order issued, no poramboke land

“shall be used for any purpose other than that for which it was originally

intended except with the prior approval of the Collector” (G.O. [Ms]

No.317, Rural Development [C4], dated December 6, 2000). In case it is not

Page 34 of 59
 WP Nos.7051 and 7052 of 2017

required for the purpose originally intended, it may be used for any other

“specified public purpose”, in which case the panchayat must publish the

notice in the village and invite objections to its proposed use of the

poramboke land. The proposal, along with any objections, must then be

submitted to the district collector, who will take the final call.

54. Poramboke land is often compared with 'Grama Natham'.

“Poram” means outside, and “boke” means revenue record. Hence the word,

'poramboke', can be defined as land, which lies outside revenue records. By

such a definition, any piece of land can be classified either as a privately-

owned Patta land, 'Government Poramboke' land or 'Grama Natham land'.

Although 'Grama Natham' can be used for building a house, there is always

a risk of litigation when the Government needs the land for its projects.

55. 'Grama Natham' lands are house sites, and must be

actively used by the land owner. If the 'Natham' is unoccupied, it will

be classified as a 'Poramboke Natham'. Where such 'Poramboke

Nathams' are concerned, the Government acts as a custodian, and may

allocate the piece of land to an individual. Hence, 'Grama Natham' may

Page 35 of 59
 WP Nos.7051 and 7052 of 2017

not be an ideal investment if the buyer does not have intention to build

a house and reside in it.

56. Grama Natham lands cannot be used for commercial

activities. A joint venture to construct an apartment complex on such a

land is treated as a commercial activity. Any activity that does not clearly

show the intent of the owner of a 'Grama Natham' to reside on the land can

be classified as a commercial activity. In June 2011, a judgement was

passed in the Madras High Court on a joint venture project built on a

'Grama Natham' land where one owner had entered into a joint venture to

construct stilt + 4 floors of an apartment complex. Since the apartment was

built on a 'Grama Natham' land, the Madras High court ruled that this

activity could be classified as a commercial activity.

NEED FOR UNIFORMITY IN NOMENCLATURE WITH RESPECT

TO 'NATHAM' LANDS

57. The Government has announced that the nomenclature with

respect to lands will be changed to reflect the difference between private

and Government ownership. As 'Natham' land records have adopted

Page 36 of 59
 WP Nos.7051 and 7052 of 2017

different nomenclature for different areas, the Government has found an

urgent need to bring in uniformity in these records. This change will have to

be bought to all 'Natham' land records of different places excluding

Chennai.

58. 'Natham' lands belongs to no one. There is no legal proof of

the ownership of such a land. 'Grama Natham' land can only be used for

residential purposes and not commercial. There is no surrounding social

infrastructure and almost negligible scope of development in future. The

extract of Natham chitta from Tamil Nilam will be treated as a valid and

legal document. Hence the necessary changes have to be made. When the

land is titled as Government-manai, it leads to a perception that the public

may be encroaching on private property. But that is not the case, as many

land holdings are private holdings within the 'Natham' land settlement. This

particular change will lead to all 'Natham' lands falling under two categories

of ”Ryotwari Manai’ and ‘Sarkar Poromboke’. This will ensure uniformity

and ease confusion between different names for 'Natham' lands.

Page 37 of 59
 WP Nos.7051 and 7052 of 2017

59. Pertinently, in Chinnathami Goundan vs.

Venkatasubramania Iyer [1939 MWN 207], Wadsworth J., dealt with

unoccupied village site and it is held as follows:-

“I am of opinion that by the recognised

practice of this Presidency - excluding areas with
a Special Revenue law such as Malabar - the
control of unoccupied village site land vests in the
proprietor whoever he may be. In Ryotwari areas
that control is exercised by the Government in the
Revenue Department by means of the grant of
house site Pattas without which occupation by an
individual villager would be unauthorised. In
Zamindari areas that control is exercised by the
Zamindar. In a Shrotriem village not falling under
the Estates Land Act, I am of opinion that
according to the common practice of this
Presidency the control of such unoccupied village
site vests in the Shrotriemdar. My attention has
been drawn to the decision of a Bench of this
Court in Venkataramana Sivan v. Secretary of
State for India (1), which is a case arising out of a
whole Inam village wherein the Government
claimed the right to penalise an unauthorised
occupation of a cremation ground poramboke. It

Page 38 of 59
 WP Nos.7051 and 7052 of 2017

was held in that case that the Government was

vested with the right of protecting such communal
ground for the benefit of the community and there
is an observation in the judgment of Spencer, J.
To the effect the Government is the custodian of
the rights of the public in lands such as sites for
Pagodas, burning grounds, threshing floors,
cattle stands, unassigned house sites and
backyards. The suggestion is that the legal title
vests in the Government in trust for communal
purposes”.”

60. In the present case, the title has not been established by the

petitioner's vendor except by stating that they were having uninterrupted

possession and enjoyment of the land. It is not stated, whether the

petitioner's vendors were granted assignment of the subject land by the

Government. The statement in the Sale Deed would be insufficient to prove

the title. The said statement itself is doubtful in view of the fact that the

executants of the Sale Deeds of the year 1995 belonged to the same family

or the relatives and they made statements that they were in uninterrupted

possession of the land without any assignment from the Competent

Authorities. More-so, there was an absolute ban during the relevant point of

Page 39 of 59
 WP Nos.7051 and 7052 of 2017

time and the lands earlier classified as 'Grama Natham' were reclassified as

'Sarkar Poramboke – Grama Natham' on account of urbanisation. The urban

belt areas urbanised no more remain as villages. On urbanisation, the land

values were sky-rocketing and the Government thought fit to protect such

'Grama Natham' lands and accordingly imposed ban and reclassified the

lands as 'Sarkar Poramboke'.

61. That being the factum, any patta or assignment made by the

Revenue Authorities are invalid and no person can claim title over such

'Government Poramboke' lands. Thus the manner in which the Sale Deeds

were executed in the year 1995 by the petitioner's vendors create serious

doubt regarding their occupation of 'Grama Natham' lands during the

relevant point of time. The Koyambedu area and nearby areas were

classified as 'Grama Natham' before being declared as Chennai Built Area

and the ban imposed was extended by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.1135,

dated 17.03.1962. The Koyambedu area is lying within 32 kms of Chennai

City limits and therefore, the lands falling within the Chennai City limits,

cannot be assigned nor patta can be issued by the Revenue Authorities on

the basis of the statement that the persons are in occupation of the subject

Page 40 of 59
 WP Nos.7051 and 7052 of 2017

land. Presuming that persons are in occupation of 'Government Poramboke'

lands, they are liable to be evicted by invoking the provisions of the Tamil

Nadu Land Encroachments Act, 1905, since the said lands were reclassified

as 'Government Poramboke'. Once it is reclassified as 'Government

Poramboke' lands, then the provisions of the Land Encroachments Act,

1905 can be applied and the encroachers are liable to be evicted.

62. The impugned Government Order issued in

G.O.Ms.No.139, Planning Development and Special Initiatives Department,

dated 27.08.2010 states that the subject land is in Koyambedu in Chennai

District, Egmore-Nungambakkam Taluk, Koyambedu Village is a 'Grama

Natham' land and accordingly it was transferred for developing Chennai

Metro Rail Project. Though the Government Order transferring the subject

lands were passed in the year 2010, the said order is challenged by the writ

petitioner in the year 2017 in the present writ petitions. In the earlier writ

petition, the petitioner has not challenged the said Government Order.

63. The notice issued under Section 7 of the Land

Page 41 of 59
 WP Nos.7051 and 7052 of 2017

Encroachments Act, 1905 reveals that the subject land has been classified as

'Government Poramboke'. Presuming that the lands are not reclassified as

'Government Poramboke', the 'Grama Natham' lands are meant for housing

to homeless poor people in a village. The occupants of 'Grama Natham'

lands in villages are assigned for their benefit only with an idea to provide

shelter to homeless poor people. The Government is duty bound to regulate

'Grama Natham' lands for the benefit of all homeless poor people without

causing any discrimination.

64. Occupation of 'Grama Natham' lands to a larger extent and

usage of such 'Grama Natham' lands for commercial purposes are not only

impermissible but also unconstitutional. The very purpose of classification

of 'Grama Natham' lands are to provide shelter to homeless poor people and

therefore, any abuse of such 'Grama Natham' lands are causing infringement

of basic rights of the citizen, who all are homeless poor people.

65. It is not as if 'Grama Natham' lands can be occupied to a

larger extent by greedy men and utilise the said lands for commercial

purposes for personal gains. Such occupation of 'Grama Natham' lands are

Page 42 of 59
 WP Nos.7051 and 7052 of 2017

to be resumed by the Government and the assignments are to be granted

only to the homeless poor people on establishing their eligibility.

66. In the event of permitting such greedy men to encroach

upon the 'Grama Natham' lands to a larger extent, and usage of

'Grama Natham' lands for commercial purposes, it would lead to

lawlessness in the Society. Persons with money power, muscle power or

political power alone would be in a position to occupy such vast extent

of 'Grama Natham' lands for exploitation and for unjust gains, which

would cause infringement of the rights of homeless poor people and the

same will result in an unconstitutionality with reference to the

Constitutional mandate of 'Social Justice'.

67. In the present cases, the petitioner cannot said to be a

landless poor person. The father of the writ petitioner Mr.N.Veerasamy

was the former Minister in the State of Tamil Nadu and the petitioner

himself is the sitting Member of Parliament. The petitioner belongs to

an affluent family and therefore the possibility of political abuse cannot

be overruled in the present cases.

Page 43 of 59
 WP Nos.7051 and 7052 of 2017

68. The petitioner has relied upon 'Thoraya Patta' granted by

the Tahsildar. However, 'Thoraya Patta' granted in respect of 'Grama

Natham' lands falling within the City limits of Chennai. More-so, the lands

were reclassified as 'Government Poramboke' lands. 'Thoraya Patta' in the

present cases was granted in favour of the family members of the petitioner

by the Special Tahsildar, Egmore-Nungambakkam Taluk on 28.09.2013, by

erroneously stating that the subject land is 'Grama Natham'. However, the

Tahsildar, in his counter-affidavit, has stated that the 'Thoraya Pattas' are to

be granted to the occupants of the lands classified as 'Grama Natham'.

More-so, patta has been issued for a vast extent of land for Single Unit,

which is impermissible as far as the 'Grama Natham' lands are concerned. In

any event, the patta issued by the Tahsildar explicitly portrays that there is a

possibility of political abuse. The family members of the petitioner belong

to the prominent political party (DMK) and the father of the writ petitioner

was the Hon'ble Minister in the Government of Tamil Nadu for more than

one tenure.

69. The judgments relied upon by the petitioner are of no avail

Page 44 of 59
 WP Nos.7051 and 7052 of 2017

to the petitioner, since the facts are distinguishable and more-so in all

judgments, the Courts have consistently held that 'Grama Natham' lands are

to be assigned in favour of homeless poor people and for construction of

houses Such 'Grama Natham' lands cannot be assigned to larger extent,

which would result in unjust gains. Natham lands cannot be used for

commercial purposes. Revenue Standing Orders are not considered in any of

the judgments relied on.

70. “Social Justice” and “Equality Clause” are hallmark

principles under the Indian Constitution. Since because Grama Natham

lands do not vest with the Government, it does not mean that the

Government losses its power to regulate the Grama Natham lands in

accordance with the Constitutional principles as the Government is

mandated to protect the basic rights of the citizen under the Constitution.

71. “We people of India” resolved the Indian Constitution and

ensured “social justice and equality” and elimination of inequality is the

inherent philosophy in the Constitution. While speaking about equality

elimination of inequality is a deemed principle under the Indian

Page 45 of 59
 WP Nos.7051 and 7052 of 2017

Constitution. Thus, the Government creating inequality at no circumstance

be tolerated by the Constitutional Courts.

72. Political parties across the country specifically in the State

of Tamil Nadu are claiming themselves as champions of social justice and

equality. Thus, any ruling political party is expected to honour the 'Will' of

the People, which is the Constitution. “Social justice and equality” clause

enunciated under the Constitution do not permit any greedy men to occupy

larger extent of Grama Natham lands for commercial purposes and for

personal gains. The very classification “Grama Natham” cannot be suited to

the lands falling under the territorial jurisdiction of Corporations,

Municipalities and Towns. Thus, under the guise of the classification as

“Grama Natham” no person can be allowed to grab the lands for unjust

gains and by depriving the homeless poor people, who all are longing to

secure free house sites to lead their livelihood. Greedy men are liable to be

evicted under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act,

1905. Whether the Government notified reclassification of Grama Natham

lands in urban areas or not. It is deemed to be reclassified on account of

urbanisation and the Grama Natham lands lost its character and relevance

Page 46 of 59
 WP Nos.7051 and 7052 of 2017

after urbanisation of towns, municipal areas or cities.

73. Classification of lands are not static. It is changing due to

continuous developments and the villages are becoming Towns and the

Towns are becoming Cities. So also the Panchayats are upgraded based on

the developments and Municipalities are upgraded as Corporations based on

the population and the developments in various localities. Therefore,

classification of land is a changing phenomena, which can never be static.

Even if the Government failed to reclassify the lands in a particular area, no

citizen can abuse the non-classification or incorrect classification of

Government lands for illegal and unjust gains. In such circumstances,

reclassification is a deemed concept, which is to be applied taking note of

the urbanisation in the particular locality. Even in case, where there is no

reclassification of Government lands notified and such lands are high value

lands falling within the urban areas, then the occupants cannot claim that

they are the title holders of Grama Natham lands, unless such persons hold

title approved in the manner known to law.

74. Exploitation of 'Grama Natham' lands for commercial

Page 47 of 59
 WP Nos.7051 and 7052 of 2017

purposes at no circumstances are permissible. 'Grama Natham' lands are not

meant for commercial usage. The persons in occupation of 'Grama Natham'

lands if allowed to convert the same for commercial purposes, then the

concept of 'Grama Natham' lands for the usage of construction of houses for

landless poor people is defeated. Thus the Government is empowered to

step in and evict the encroachers abusing the 'Grama Natham' lands for

commercial purposes.

75. The spirit of the Revenue Standing Order 21 (RSO 21) is to

be looked into by this Court. RSO 21 (1) Note stipulates that “in assigning

lands for house sites care should be taken to see that land is not granted to

persons already possessing enough land for their reasonable requirements

and that preference is given to those who own no house site and whose

family's income does not exceed Rs.12,000/- per annum”.

76. Clause (1)(ii) to RSO 21 speaks about the assignment of

house site is banned in the following cases:

(a) District Headquarters and Towns with a population of with

over 2 lakhs – 8 kilometers.

Page 48 of 59
 WP Nos.7051 and 7052 of 2017

(b) Other Towns with a population exceeding one lakh and

upto two lakhs – 5 kilometers.

(c) Town with a population exceeding 50,000 and not

exceeding one lakh – 3 kilometers.

(d) Other Towns with a population of less than 50,000 – 1.5

kilometers.

77. RSO 21 commences in general by stating that portions

of 'Grama Natham' lands or village site at the disposal of the

Government not being the land required for the common use of the

villagers may be granted for building purposes to the bonafide

applicants. Therefore, the procedures for assignment of 'Grama Natham'

lands in villages are enumerated in RSO 21 and the Revenue Authorities are

incompetent to assign the lands classified as 'Grama Natham' beyond the

scope of RSO 21. Sub clause (2) to RSO 21 provides procedure in dealing

with the applications. The contents state that the applications for house site

shall be made in the form in Appendix IV-A and shall clearly specify the

land required, the purpose for which it is wanted (i.e.,) whether for

constructing a Thatched or Tiled or Terraced building or for erecting a Cow

Page 49 of 59
 WP Nos.7051 and 7052 of 2017

Shed and so on”. The publication is to be made while dealing with the

applications filed by the persons seeking assignment of 'Grama Natham'

lands in villages. A report is to be prepared and sent to the Tahsildar signed

by the Village Administrative Officer counter signed by the Revenue

Inspector. Thus the procedures to deal with the applications are elaborately

stipulated in RSO 21.

78. Pertinently, sub Clause (3) to RSO 21 denotes Treatment

of Unauthorised Occupation. (i) Village site not to be appropriated

without previous permission.-Collectors will assert the prerogative of

Government by making it known in all Government villages that village site

cannot be appropriated without permission previously obtained. (ii)

Consequence of such appropriation.-If any portion of the village site is

appropriated without permission and if the occupation is considered to be

objectionable, the provisions of Act III 1905 should be applied in

accordance with the instructions contained in Standing Order No.26. If the

occupant is found to be entitled to an allotment and the occupation is

unobjectionable the site may be formally granted in accordance with the

rule, contained in paragraph 2 above and no penalty or at most a mere

Page 50 of 59
 WP Nos.7051 and 7052 of 2017

nominal penalty, should be imposed unless special circumstances render the

imposition of penalty desirable.

79. RSO 21 (3)(ii) unambiguously stipulates that if any portion

of the village site is appropriated without permission and if the occupation

is considered to be objectionable, the provisions of Act III 1905 should be

applied in accordance with the instructions contained in Standing Order

No.26.

80. In-discriminate assignment of Government land without

running through the required background checks and without consulting the

stake holders involved will defeat the object sought to be achieved. The

object here is to ensure that the bonafide applicants are granted “Grama

Natham” lands or Village site for construction of housing purposes, when

the Government is of the view that it is not required for common public use.

In such a scenario, such lands are being assigned by identifying potential

bonafide applicants, who are well fitted within the parameters as stipulated

under the Revenue Standing Orders (RSO) and the Government Orders.

Page 51 of 59
 WP Nos.7051 and 7052 of 2017

81. Apart from ensuring that the conditions as stipulated in the

Revenue Standing Orders (RSO), complied with, it is also vital to ensure

that the object envisioned is achieved.

82. But this Court is witnessing that in Multitude cases, the

assignment of Government lands or majorly done to the powerful and

influential members of the society, who may not be bonafide applicants

and in turn these Government lands are used for commercial purposes.

With the efflux of time, the de facto purpose or essence is washed away

and or is made to seem right to the visible eyes.

83. This defeats the crux of such assignments of Government

lands done by the Government. An independent and meticulous examination

and discussion is a cardinal requirement before such assignments of

Government lands or Grama Natham lands are made.

84. The Government is not empowered to grant lands based

on their own whims and fancies. A guideline needs to be put in place to

ensure that power in assignment of Grama Natham lands is bridled and

Page 52 of 59
 WP Nos.7051 and 7052 of 2017

used for the rightful purposes to the rightful people. The Government is

not just for politicians and party men. It is the representative of the

common man. It does not only include the top echelons of the society,

but travels the bottom rung of the ladder and it is the inherent duty of

the Government to work for their upliftment both socially and

economically. This can be achieved through schemes, such as assignment

of Government lands, Natham lands, which is a welfare measure.

85. Therefore, any unauthorised occupation of 'Grama Natham'

lands is impermissible and occupants are to be construed as encroachers and

are liable to be evicted by following the procedures as contemplated under

the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachments Act, 1905. Thus the contention of the

petitioner that Land Encroachments Act, 1905 is not applicable in respect of

'Government Poramboke - Grama Natham' land is untenable.

86. As far as the subject land is concerned, it is falling within

Chennai City limit area. The original classification of 'Grama Natham' was

reclassified as 'Government Poramboke' and entries were made in the

Revenue Registers. City of Chennai cannot be construed as village so as to

Page 53 of 59
 WP Nos.7051 and 7052 of 2017

continue the classification of land as 'Grama Natham'. The Government

imposed ban to assign the Government land in City Areas irrespective of the

fact whether it is classified as 'Grama Natham – Government Poramboke' or

otherwise. Therefore no occupant is entitled to claim title or right over the

Government lands, even in the absence of reclassification of erstwhile

'Grama Natham' lands as 'Government Poramboke' lands. 'Grama' means

'Village' Chennai City is not a village and it is a Metro City. Therefore, the

erstwhile 'Grama Natham' lands prior to extension of City limits cannot be

allowed to continue as 'Grama Natham' and in the present cases,

reclassification of 'Grama Natham' lands as 'Government Poramboke' lands

were made long before and thus the very contention of the petitioner that the

land did not vest with the Government is unacceptable and not in

consonance with the established principles of law. As per the TSLR Extract,

classification was made as 'Sarkar Poramboke – Grama Natham'.

87. The petitioner admits that he has constructed hospital and

converted the subject lands for commercial purposes. Therefore, the

petitioner is not entitled for the relief as such sought for in the present writ

petitions. The Government transferred the subject lands in favour of

Page 54 of 59
 WP Nos.7051 and 7052 of 2017

Chennai Metro Rail Limited (CMRL) in the year 2010 and part of the land

has already been utilised for Chennai Metro Rail Project. The Car Park Area

also has been taken possession by CMRL and being utilised for the Metro

Rail Project. Thus the Government is empowered to evict the petitioner and

resume the entire subject lands and utilise the same either for the purpose of

Chennai Metro Rail Project or for any other public purposes.

88. In view of the above facts and circumstances, this Court is

inclined to pass the following orders:-

(1) The reliefs as such sought for in the present writ petitions

are rejected.

(2) The petitioner, being the sitting Member of Parliament, one

month's time is granted to him to vacate the entire subject property

belonging to the Government and hand over possession to the Competent

Authorities of the Government of Tamil Nadu.

(3) In the event of failure on the part of the petitioner in

handing over the subject property to the Competent Authorities of the

Government of Tamil Nadu, on or before 15.10.2023, the Respondents are

directed to evict the petitioner immediately and resume the subject

Page 55 of 59
 WP Nos.7051 and 7052 of 2017

Government property.

(4) The respondents are directed to initiate all further actions to

recover the use and occupation charges or other lawful charges due to the

Government as per law by following the procedures as contemplated.

(5) The respondents are directed to utilise the subject property

for public purposes in the manner known to law.

89. With the above directions, both the writ petitions are

disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

15-09-2023

Index : Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-Speaking order
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
Svn

Page 56 of 59
 WP Nos.7051 and 7052 of 2017

To

1.The Principal Secretary to Government,

Planning, Development and Special Initiatives
Department,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St. George,
Secretariat,
Chennai-600 009.

2.The Commissioner of Land Administration,

Chepauk, Chennai,
Ezhilagam, Chepauk,
Chennai-600 005.

3.The Managing Director,

Chennai Metro Rail Limited,
Administrative Office Building,
CMRL Depot,
Poonamallee High Road,
Koyambedu,
Chennai-600 107.

4.The District Collector,

Chennai District,
Chennai.

5.The Tahsildar,
Egmore-Nungambakkam Taluk,
No.88, Spur Tank Road,
Mayor Ramanathan Street,
Chetpet,
Chennai-600 031.

Page 57 of 59
 WP Nos.7051 and 7052 of 2017

6.The Commissioner,
Corporation of Chennai,
Ripon Building,
Park Town,
Chennai-600 003.

7.The Secretary to Government,

Ministry of Urban Development,
Union of India, Room No.308-C,
Nirman Bhavan,
New Delhi-110 108.

Page 58 of 59
 WP Nos.7051 and 7052 of 2017

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

Svn

Common Order in
WPs 7051 and 7052 of 2017

15-09-2023

Page 59 of 59